L. Ramu v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :25.03.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL L. Ramu ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondents to take cognizance of the complaint given by the petitioner and complete the enquiry within a time as stipulated by this Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Mathavan For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the respondents to take action on the complaint given by the petitioner.

1/4

2. According to the petitioner, on 03.02.2025, one Karuppaiah picked up quarrel with the petitioner and threatened the petitioner with deadly weapon. Immediately, he called the police through Emergency Phone No. 100 and thereafter, at about 12.30 p.m., two police officials came to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the petitioner, but no action has been taken so far. Immediately, the petitioner sent a complaint on 04.02.2025 before the second respondent, but no action was taken. Therefore, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents would submit that based on the complaint given by the petitioner, they conducted enquiry and the same was closed. Therefore, nothing survives for further adjudication.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no enquiry was conducted as alleged by the respondents and no result of the enquiry was informed to the petitioner. Today, as per the direction of this Court, a copy of the closure report is served to the petitioner. He would further submit that this closure report is pertaining to the occurrence dated 07.03.2025, but the complaint was lodged for the occurrence took place on 03.02.2025, and no enquiry was conducted.

2/4

5. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents would further submits that at the time of enquiry for the occurrence dated 07.03.2025, the previous complaint was also enquired. The opposite party has also lodged a complaint against the petitioner and they assigned C.S.R.No.66 of 2025 and C.S.R.No.67 of 2025 and both the complaints were closed after enquiry. Therefore nothing survives for further adjudication.

6. The prayer of the petitioner is to direct the respondents to take action based on the complaint of the petitioner. According to the second respondent, the complaints of the petitioner were already enquired and closed, and therefore, no further order is required to be passed in this case. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum to challenge the closure report in the manner known to law. In view of the same, preserving the liberty of the petitioner to challenge the closure report, this criminal original petition is closed.

25.03.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Mac 3/4

P. DHANABAL , J.

Mac To

1. The Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police Panayapatti Police Station, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

25.03.2025 4/4